The Weekend

A peaceful day at home. I realized today that I live in one of the most pleasant set-ups that I've ever lived in. Here is a pic taken from my cell phone at dusk. The green is rice fields.



Not much is new, except, bought a washer for $39 bucks at a second-hand store and so far it actually works! I have become a bargain shop-a-holic and Japan is my nemesis. No exaggeration. Bought this dress for $3, ring for $1, bag for $18 and shoes for $15. The only reason I bought the shoes is because they said "Mac Hoppers" on them. How cool is that?? PLEASE... Help me!! I need Bargain-addict Anonymous!!






Dear me, what gives? There are people starving in Rwanda and I'm feeding my habit. Terrible, simply terrible.

Speaking of hunger in Africa, Gino turned me on to something interesting yesterday, food aid to Africa.

Highlights: the American government had only 23 staff members monitoring $1.7 billion in food programs across 55 countries. Only 1/3 of food aid actually reaches the source, due to politicking, a shortage of people, and tribal tensions.





Here are some excerpts, quoted from Time magazine:

The United Nations World Food Programme coordinates roughly half of global food aid, E.U.- and U.S.- donated sacks of grain and tubs of refined vegetable oil. The two are mixed together to form a nutritious blend designed to bolster childrens' diets in a country such as Ethopia where half the children are malnourished.

Last year, WFP coordinated emergency food aid for 73 million people worldwide, with the U.S. contributing 60% of that total. Yet this donated bounty may not be the panacea we imagine. A January report by the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) put the question bluntly: Can food aid do more harm than good?

"There's no question that food aid saves millions of lives," says FAO senior economist and report editor Terri Raney. "But we're concerned that it's being asked to do too much, too inefficiently, and that by over-relying on food aid we ignore other solutions that could be more effective."

Nearly a quarter-century after the famine that prompted Live Aid, Ethiopia is still a desperately hungry place. It receives more food aid than any other nation save Sudan.

"Other countries like India have graduated from food dependency and are now food donors, so it's fair to ask why Ethiopia is still so food dependent," says Paulette Jones, spokesperson for WFP in Ethiopia. "But when you see a hungry child, it's very hard to say, no, we're not going to give any more."

Still, in a country like Ethiopia, where corruption and tribal tensions are rife, how much food aid actually reaches the neediest? International agencies and donor governments try to monitor the thousands of tons of grain flowing in, and millions of Ethiopians survive thanks to foreign charity.

But last year, usaid, the American government arm that coordinates emergency food aid, had just 23 staff members monitoring $1.7 billion in food programs across 55 countries. "I've been to places where starving villagers say they have never received food aid, but then you go to the village chief's house and you see bags of foreign grain stacked up," says the director of a Western aid agency operating in Ethiopia. "In too many cases, we're allowing food aid to strengthen a corrupt politician's power."

One-third of food-aid budgets, or roughly $600 million, never reaches the intended recipients and is instead swallowed up by costs in donor countries, according to the oecd.

That's because only 15% of donated food is sourced locally, even though plentiful grains may be harvested just over the mountain from famine-stricken areas. Almost all U.S. food aid, by law, must be grown and processed at home. U.S. agribusiness, which receives subsidies for growing such crops, and the U.S. shipping industry profit from the arrangement. But transporting California rice to a rice-growing country like Cambodia makes little sense. When the food finally arrives — often too late to feed those most vulnerable — the influx of foreign products can wreak havoc on the local market, depressing prices just when farmers need income to feed themselves.

As an alternative, economists like Nobel laureate Amartya Sen suggest rich countries send cash, which in many cases may flow into needy economies more quickly and efficiently than food aid.


You can find the full article in Time Web site.